Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
76,661
Reaction score
40,133
Location
Ponca City Ok
I said you're right, they never will, because it will never be brought to trial, because an act of congress currently makes that impossible. But if congress reversed course and the case was subsequently brought to trial, SCOTUS would absolutely positively have to hear the case, and it would get fast tracked. When you have a landmark states rights case involving supremacy and desuetude, no other court is even qualified. It would be the federal government against 33 states, backed by every lobbyist and high powered attorney in the country. Like I said, you guys don't even begin to appreciate the magnitude of what you're proposing. This does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. If charged, it would be the same as charging all medical marijuana patients and everyone else involved at every level.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
6,149
Location
Norman
My question for this discussion is does the state of OK report MJ card holders to the feds for the purpose of background checks?
I'm pretty sure they don't. The MJ card is a medical card, and there are laws protecting medical privacy, so I'm not sure how they'd be able to report it even if they wanted.

If you look at all the other questions, those involve legal records; that's why they specify things like being adjudicated mentally defective--that's a ruling by a judge, and therefore there's a legal record on file somewhere. They don't ask if you've checked yourself into the nuthouse because that's protected by doctor-patient confidentiality.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
76,661
Reaction score
40,133
Location
Ponca City Ok
I said you're right, they never will, because it will never be brought to trial, because an act of congress currently makes that impossible. But if congress reversed course and the case was subsequently brought to trial, SCOTUS would absolutely positively have to hear the case,
Read what you just said. I said it will never make it to SCOTUS and you agreed.
Next comment is that you say an act of congress makes that impossible. I need a link to that act of congress please so I can read and evaluate.
In another sentence you say if congress reversed course, (what course) and the case was subsequently brought to trial, SCOTUS would absolutely have to hear the case.
I need to see how that happens.
 

JR777

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
357
Reaction score
306
Location
Piedmont
Read what you just said. I said it will never make it to SCOTUS and you agreed.
Next comment is that you say an act of congress makes that impossible. I need a link to that act of congress please so I can read and evaluate.
In another sentence you say if congress reversed course, (what course) and the case was subsequently brought to trial, SCOTUS would absolutely have to hear the case.
I need to see how that happens.

For many years running, congress has forbade the justice department from interfering with state medical marijuana patients. It's in the spending bills every time they approve funding for the justice department, of which the ATF is a part.

The only way an otherwise legal patient could be charged for anything relating the illegality of weed on a federal level is if congress reversed course and gave the DOJ the go ahead to start charging said patients with crimes related to the federal illegality of weed (e.g. possessing, manufacturing, selling, lying on forms, etc.).

If that happened, you can bet your sweet tootsie it would be decided by the supreme court. No one can say exactly how it would play out, but the federal government would be opening Pandora's box if they ever tried, and they know it. Which is why congress will never allow it.

For one thing it would likely cost them big. They would undoubtedly lose the case by virtue of political pressure alone, and when they did it would set a huge precedent for other cases involving supremacy and desuetude. That is a serious threat to federal power that they are not going to invite. I'm not even joking, any prosecutor who tried to open that can of worms would be taking his life in his own hands, because he would be openly challenging the powers that be in their entirety.

And even if that incredibly unlikely chain of events did unfold, the likelihood of them using this particular scenario involving a 4473 is equally absurd in its own right. Again, they would be inviting a two front war with two of the most powerful lobbies on the entire planet. Pigs will fly before that happens.
 

wawazat

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
629
Reaction score
1,055
Location
OKC, OK
Everyone has their own tolerance level of risk.

My decision making process to avoid it until it is federally legal is based completely on a distrust of politicians, especially those that got shifty enough to make it to the Federal level. I absolutely do not put it past career politicians that really want that gun ban badge on their sash to play the long game allowing people to feel safe becoming documented users of a Schedule 1 narcotic without making it legal at the federal level. At that point, it would be a FAR easier move to adjust their position and start confiscating firearms from everyone with a MMJ card. It takes no changing of laws or special votes. It just takes the removal of a single qualifying criteria in a funding bill for the Justice Department. There could be no claims of violating 2A rights from a legal standpoint because those folks would not be seen as law abiding citizens at the Federal level and it could be asserted that they knowingly committed a felony by partaking in gun ownership and marijuana use.

I don't judge anyone that does decide to enjoy both, I am just not willing to personally take that chance. There's a lot of snakes in the grass around DC.

Edit to add what was pulled from the OSBI site this afternoon.
Oklahoma SDA and MMJ.jpg
 

JR777

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
357
Reaction score
306
Location
Piedmont
Everyone has their own tolerance level of risk.

My decision making process to avoid it until it is federally legal is based completely on a distrust of politicians, especially those that got shifty enough to make it to the Federal level. I absolutely do not put it past career politicians that really want that gun ban badge on their sash to play the long game allowing people to feel safe becoming documented users of a Schedule 1 narcotic without making it legal at the federal level. At that point, it would be a FAR easier move to adjust their position and start confiscating firearms from everyone with a MMJ card. It takes no changing of laws or special votes. It just takes the removal of a single qualifying criteria in a funding bill for the Justice Department. There could be no claims of violating 2A rights from a legal standpoint because those folks would not be seen as law abiding citizens at the Federal level and it could be asserted that they knowingly committed a felony by partaking in gun ownership and marijuana use.

I don't judge anyone that does decide to enjoy both, I am just not willing to personally take that chance. There's a lot of snakes in the grass around DC.

Edit to add what was pulled from the OSBI site this afternoon.
View attachment 200433
Either something drastic changed in the dark of night or that's old information. HB2612 reads: "E. A medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee. No state or local agency, municipal or county governing authority shall restrict, revoke, suspend or otherwise infringe upon the right of a person to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories or any related firearms license or certification based solely on their status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee." http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20 ENR/hB/HB2612 ENR.PDF

It would also take more than just congress approving funding for the jackboots to start kicking in doors. There is no legal way they could confiscate firearms or charge the owners with crimes, while continuing to ignore any other aspect of any state medical marijuana program. Either the supremacy clause supersedes the states' authority to authorize their own medical programs, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then the patients are not unlawful users, and therefore there is no legal basis for taking away their guns or charging them with any crimes.

There is no law saying specifically that marijuana users across the board can't have guns. Like I pointed out before, there are several types of people who use marijuana lawfully, including people who use it abroad and federal patients, and their right to own firearms is not in question. The mere use of marijuana is not what makes someone prohibited. It's the UNLAWFUL use thereof that makes someone a prohibited person.

Ergo, if they take someone's guns under the current legal framework, they are saying that person is unlawfully using marijuana, and by extension ANYONE who is using marijuana on a state approved level is unlawful, whether they own guns or not. Guns aren't a qualifying factor here. Either someone is lawfully or unlawfully using it, and the presence of a gun in their home doesn't have any bearing on that. That is, there is no legal path to arguing someone lied on a form or is otherwise illegally in possession of a firearm, without first saying that anyone who is a state legal user is violating federal law, as well.

This isn't really that complicated. If someone does even a little bit of research on the supremacy clause and how it's applied, you will immediately see that there is not necessarily any conflict between federal and state medical marijuana laws. That is, the federal government didn't specifically preclude the states from starting their own medical programs, just like the federal government has since the 70s. Now on the recreational side, that's probably pretty shaky, since that is obviously specifically what the controlled substances act meant to curtail. However, since congress has abandoned its power to enforce it on a state level, there's a pretty solid argument that even recreational states are in the clear.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom